People in New York City look at a sign informing them that the Statue of Liberty is closed on Oct. 1, 2013 due to a government shutdown. Tensions among lawmakers and President Donald Trump, combined with party leaders’ increasing focus on next year’s midterm elections, makes the possibility of a shutdown next month higher than it has been for years. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Congress returns to Washington, D.C., this week following an uneventful August recess where little to no progress was made on government funding, even though lawmakers have just weeks left until their shutdown deadline.

Republican leaders will need the support of several Democratic senators to approve a stopgap spending bill before Oct. 1, since lawmakers have once again failed to complete the dozen full-year bills on time. 

But what was once a routine bipartisan exercise has taken on heightened stakes, with Democrats and some Republicans increasingly frustrated by the Trump administration’s unilateral spending decisions.

The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has issued several reports faulting the Trump administration for impounding, or refusing to spend funds approved by Congress, in violation of the law. And dozens of lawsuits have been filed, alleging the administration has acted to supersede Congress’ power of the purse. 

The ongoing tension, combined with party leaders’ increasing focus on next year’s midterm elections, makes the possibility of a shutdown higher than it has been for years. 

President Donald Trump said in mid-August he was open to meeting with Democratic leaders once they were back in town to negotiate a government funding deal but minimized the importance of talks. 

“Well, I will, I guess, but it’s almost a waste of time to meet because they never approve anything,” Trump said.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries released a letter last week urging Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune to quickly begin negotiating a bipartisan stopgap bill. 

“The government funding issue must be resolved in a bipartisan way,” they wrote. “That is the only viable path forward.”

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, said last week that she wants to keep advancing the full-year spending bills, but that a short-term stopgap would be necessary to give lawmakers enough time. 

“We need to avoid a government shutdown, which would be horrendous if that were to occur on October 1,” Collins said, according to remarks provided by her office. “And we also need to avoid having a continuing resolution, by that I mean a stopgap bill that just puts government on automatic pilot for the whole year. 

“We’re going to have to have a short-term continuing resolution, but we’re making really good progress with overwhelming bipartisan support, and I hope that will continue.”

Another failure

Congress is supposed to complete work on the dozen annual appropriations bills before the start of the new fiscal year but has failed to do so for decades. This year is no different. 

The House and Senate are nowhere near finishing their work on the bills, which provide funding for dozens of departments, including Agriculture, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, State, Transportation and Veterans Affairs.

The bills, which make up about one-third of federal spending, also fund smaller agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation and the National Weather Service.

The House has approved two of the dozen bills — Defense and Military Construction-VA. The Senate has passed its Agriculture, Legislative Branch and Military Construction-VA bills.

The House bills have only been supported by GOP lawmakers, while the Senate’s bills are broadly bipartisan, giving that chamber an upper hand if the two chambers begin conferencing full-year bills later this year. 

Without a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on how much to spend on all of the bills, it’s highly unlikely Congress will be able to complete its work before the Oct. 1 deadline.

Leaders will instead need to reach agreement on a stopgap spending bill that essentially keeps government funding on autopilot until lawmakers can work out a final deal on the full-year bills. 

The calendar doesn’t give Speaker Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader Thune, R-S.D., much time to find compromise with their Democratic counterparts. 

Both chambers are in session for three weeks at the beginning of September before breaking for Rosh Hashanah. They’ll return to Capitol Hill on Sept. 29 with less than two days to fund the government or begin a partial shutdown.

Thune said in mid-August at the Greater Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce Inside Washington luncheon that he expects lawmakers will “have a big fight at the end of September.”

Last shutdown stretched 35 days

It’s been almost seven years since some federal departments and agencies had to navigate a shutdown, when Congress and the first Trump administration were unable to broker a funding deal before a deadline.

A shutdown this year would have substantially more impact than that 35-day debacle since, when that funding lapse began, Congress had approved the Defense, Energy-Water, Labor-HHS-Education, Legislative Branch and Military Construction-VA spending bills.

The departments and agencies funded by those laws, including Congress, weren’t affected by the shutdown.

Lawmakers have failed to send any of the full-year bills to Trump so far this year, so every department and agency would need to implement a shutdown plan if Congress doesn’t approve a stopgap spending bill before Oct. 1.

Federal employees who deal with the preservation of life and property as well as national security will likely be deemed exempt and work without pay until the shutdown ends.

Workers who are not considered essential to the federal government’s operations would be furloughed until Congress and the president broker some sort of funding deal.

Both categories of employees receive back pay once the lapse ends, though that doesn’t extend to federal contractors.

On to the stopgap

Congress regularly approves a stopgap spending bill in September to gain more time to complete negotiations on the full-year appropriations bills.

That continuing resolution, as it’s sometimes called, usually lasts until the last Friday in December when both chambers of Congress are scheduled to be in Washington, D.C.

So a September stopgap would likely last until Friday, Dec. 19, assuming the House and Senate can reach an agreement and hold floor votes in the weeks ahead.

Last year, in the lead-up to the presidential election, lawmakers approved a stopgap bill in September that funded the government through mid-December.

Following the Republican sweep of the November elections, GOP leaders opted not to negotiate the full-year bills and used a second stopgap bill to fund the government until March after a raucous 48 hours on Capitol Hill.

Speaker Johnson took a go-it-alone approach on a third stopgap spending bill, leaving Democrats completely out of the negotiations and jamming the Senate with the legislation.

Schumer and several Democrats ultimately helped Republicans get past the 60-vote legislative filibuster, but most voted against actually passing the stopgap.

The dilemma over forcing a shutdown or helping Republicans pass a stopgap bill will resurface for Schumer in the weeks ahead as he tries to navigate another shutdown deadline amid unified GOP control of Washington.

Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought testifies before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Jan. 15, 2025. (Screenshot from committee webcast)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to once again publish details about the pace at which it plans to spend money approved by Congress.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Emmet Sullivan wrote in his ruling that Congress “has sweeping authority” to require the president to post a website detailing how it doles out taxpayer dollars throughout the year.

“As explained in this Memorandum Opinion, there is nothing unconstitutional about Congress requiring the Executive Branch to inform the public of how it is apportioning the public’s money,” he wrote. “Defendants are therefore required to stop violating the law!”

The ruling won’t take effect until Thursday at 10 a.m. Eastern, giving the Trump administration time to appeal and to seek the ruling be put on hold during the appeals process.

Sullivan was appointed to the federal district court by President Bill Clinton but was selected for two prior judicial appointments by President Ronald Reagan and President George H. W. Bush.

Website pulled down

More than two years ago, Congress began requiring the White House budget office to publicly post apportionment information and the Biden administration took that step, though Trump officials pulled down the website in March.

That decision led to two separate lawsuits, one from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and another from the Protect Democracy Project.

Apportionments are the first step the executive branch takes when spending money appropriated by Congress. The documents and their footnotes usually detail how quickly, or how slowly, departments and agencies plan to send money out the door throughout the fiscal year.

The documents and the public website would have been a window into whether the Trump administration was impounding, or refusing to spend, funding that lawmakers have said it should allocate on behalf of taxpayers.

Trump administration protested provision

An attorney for the Department of Justice argued during a May hearing the Trump administration believes the provision is unconstitutional and seeks to micromanage how the executive branch spends federal funds throughout the year.

The DOJ lawyer also said posting the information within two business days, as called for in the law, would require the White House budget office to divert staff from other work.

Lawyers for CREW and Protect Democracy Project told the judge the White House was in clear violation of the law and that the data is valuable information that helps the organizations monitor if a president were to cease spending on programs funded by Congress.

The watchdog organization attorneys noted during that hearing the Government Accountability Office is looking into dozens of instances where the administration held onto congressionally approved funding instead of spending it.

They said the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, wasn’t a helpful alternative to the website since it can take months or years for organizations to get a response to their request.

Public’s right to see decisions

Sullivan wrote in the 60-page ruling the Trump administration “complaining about the extra work” that goes along with posting the information on a public website represents “a management issue; not a constitutional one.”

“Here, Congress has determined that OMB’s apportionment decisions should be publicly available so that, among other things, it and the public can see whether they are consistent with congressional appropriations,” Sullivan wrote, adding the website aids Congress with “its undisputed oversight role.”

“The Acts do not dictate how OMB should apportion funds, nor do they establish a congressional management role in the administration of apportionments,” Sullivan wrote. “The Acts merely require that the final apportionment decisions be made publicly available to provide transparency to Congress and the public.”

Sullivan rejected an argument from the Trump administration that publicly sharing details about the pace at which it’s spending taxpayer dollars was unconstitutional because it required “the disclosure of privileged information.”

“There is no evidence in the record remotely supporting the notion that the apportionment documents are presidential communications or are in any way subject to the presidential communications privilege,” Sullivan wrote. “Accordingly, the Court rejects this constitutional claim.”

Advocates applaud ruling

Cerin Lindgrensavage, counsel for Protect Democracy Project, wrote in a statement the judge’s ruling “makes clear that the executive branch cannot simply ignore appropriations laws they disagree with on policy grounds, no matter what President (Donald) Trump or OMB Director Russell Vought thinks.

“Congress passed a law making sure the American public could see how their taxpayer dollars are being spent, and we will continue to hold the administration accountable for making good on that promise.”

Nikhel Sus, deputy chief counsel at CREW, wrote in a separate statement that the organization applauds “the court’s thorough and well-reasoned decision, which reaffirms Congress’s constitutional authority to require public disclosure of how taxpayer dollars are spent.

“Americans have a right to know how taxpayer money is being spent. Ensuring public access to this information serves as a critical check on the executive branch’s abuse and misuse of federal funds.”

Rachel Cauley, communications director for the White House Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a statement the administration strongly disagrees with the ruling.

“This leftist, anti-Trump judge undermines the President’s ability to effectively manage his agencies,” Cauley wrote. “Moreover, these progressive dark money groups have zero standing to claim injury for not having access to this privileged internal information.”

The Department of Justice did not return a request for comment about the ruling or whether the administration would appeal to the Circuit Court.

U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., wrote in a statement that “the law is clear as day: every president is required to show the public how they are spending taxpayer dollars, and it is past time President Trump and Russ Vought get the website they illegally ripped down back up.”

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, didn’t immediately return a request for comment.